Why on earth does the UN Security Council still exist when the rules and regulations that the people who have the right to veto set up in the first place are dumped just as quick as you can say Bachar al-Assad? The US and France are preparing to bypass those rules for the umpteenth time in the history of the United Nations and it just makes a laughing stock of what was supposed to preserve peace. Anyhow, the countries that sit on the Council all have a few things very much in common despite their ideological back-stabbing and their attempts at tripping each other up while all the time unleashing irksome grins for the cameras and the general public in true spin-doctor fashion.
The other countries in the world that want the place in the warmed-up seats of the US, Russia, China, France and the UK want it for the same reason that those countries are dead set on keeping their posteriors firmly seated where the sun doesn’t shine. Their vetoes have afforded them all the ability to be listened to in the world. They have been granted (or rather they have granted themselves) the ability to warn, advise, threaten and strike or impose sanctions. They have the means to wage war in the name of democracy and to defend principles and at the same time reap the benefits that will be delivered by the servants’ entrance and the back door. They have been disposed to publically defend peace and yet sell more arms than any other country in the world. Not bad and no surprise that everybody wants to be sitting there alongside them.
The veto also gives them the right to bypass the veto it would seem.
But the hypocrisy of the veto system on the Security Council of the United Nations has gone one step further with John Kerry recently.
Sunday September 1st saw John Kerry, Secretary of State, on Meet the Press (NBC News) comparing Bachar al-Assad to Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein all rolled into one. Is that the definition of being two-faced? As Abraham Lincoln once said: “If I were two-faced, I wouldn’t be wearing this one”. Maybe John Kerry needs to listen to old Abe. It’s probably John Kerry that is being two-faced in so far as he was only singing the praises of the Syrian leader not so long ago. The proof of the pudding is always in the eating and Kerry has gorged himself on that by getting an embarrassing photo published of his candle-lit dinner with the al-Assads. Kerry has been outed in true scandalous fashion and that’s cause for concern and for questions to be raised. The photo shows Kerry and his wife Teresa Heinz dining with the Syrian Hitler-Hussein and his wife in a posh Damas restaurant in 2009. Just four years ago they were munching on the same bread rolls in Syria. Today the al-Assads are the arch enemies of Kerry but it’s the Syrian people that may end up splattered in ketchup of a different type.
Why has the mainstream media largely left this unreported? There is also a video interview in which Bachar al-Assad seem to be buddies of the type that any friend would greatly envy. He states:
“I trust Senator Kerry, to start with this word. I trust Senator Kerry, and I think he’s genuine. And I met him five times. It’s not the first meeting or the second meeting. I met him five times in very difficult circumstances. So what he said, he said what he meant, what he means. But I think he’s not the one who’s going to implement. You have the administration, and you have the Congress. Anyone can put obstacles. So I think we are looking for the results. Think to date I am convinced about what he said.”
Kerry was only saying in 2011 the complete opposite of what he is screaming from the rooftops of the White House today in so much as he believed Bachar al-Assad to have been: “very generous with me." Just how generous is another question. We always like generosity, but ransparency of that past generosity would be a good thing right now. Kerry went on to say that with Assad as leader of Syria: "Syria will move; Syria will change as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States."
Only Pravda has reported on it. Look as hard as you can to see where else it has been reported or if the embarrassment has blinkered the press in the rest of the world and gagged the freedom of journalism. It is a sorry day when Pravda actually reports the truth and the rest of the journalists don’t.
The origin of the photo is unknown, or perhaps the photographer is winging his way to Russia right now to seek asylum. Soon, the whole of the US will be fleeing the country to join the Putin posse.
Maybe there’s somewhere out there that can fathom out the turn-around in the relations between the two men. Lovers’ tiff or two countries at loggerheads?